...the WR is gaining global interest, with churches in New Zealand, Canada, and large interest in Britain. It looks like the general trend is for growth.

WELCOME to the Forum, Shanghaiski!

Speaking as a New Zealander who knows both of the Antiochian WR missions in this country the situation is anything but growth. The Antiochian Orthodox mission parish in the South Island (Christchurch) - operating for over 30 years with a very enthusiastic and capable priest. Number of parishioners: 2.

The Antiochian Orthodox mission parish in the North Island (Wellington) - operating 7 years with one priest and (since last month) a deacon. Number of parishioners: 4.

Both these priests are highly motivated and educated but the missionary effort is not, so far, showing any results.

Wow. I didn't know that. Here in the U.S., most WR parishes are begun by parishes coming into Orthodoxy, not by mission churches, and we've added several parishes in the last years. Perhaps one advantage the ER has here is that it is different. This can be a bit of a disadvantage, too, however, because there are, let's face it, people who are attracted less to Christ and the Gospel than to the exotic ritual or the esoteric theology expressed in lengthy poetic hymnography which may or may not be sung in a strange, possibly dead language, with or without four-part harmony, maybe or maybe not by a man who appears to be imitating a camel (nearly did that myself this morning singing the canon).

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

When I first heard about the Western Rite, it sounded like a great idea to me. If these rites are truly a lost part of our Orthodox heritage, it could only be a good thing to bring them back, right? Looking into the issue, though, it seems that WR often has a tinge of ethnocentrism. How many WR enthusiasts have this assumption that "I'm of Western European descent, therefore I should have a Western European liturgy." There seems to be a lurking assumption that the Byzantine rite is "ethnic", as if Greeks, Arabs, Slavs, and Romanians are somehow ethnically unified.

I still think WR could be useful as a missionary tool, for example, as a way to ease the conversion of Anglicans or Roman Catholics. But I think we really need to stridently reject the idea that every cultural or ethnic group should have its own rite.

When I first heard about the Western Rite, it sounded like a great idea to me. If these rites are truly a lost part of our Orthodox heritage, it could only be a good thing to bring them back, right? Looking into the issue, though, it seems that WR often has a tinge of ethnocentrism.

Then they should fit right in.

Quote

How many WR enthusiasts have this assumption that "I'm of Western European descent, therefore I should have a Western European liturgy." There seems to be a lurking assumption that the Byzantine rite is "ethnic", as if Greeks, Arabs, Slavs, and Romanians are somehow ethnically unified.

They're all Eastern. There's a difference.

Quote

I still think WR could be useful as a missionary tool, for example, as a way to ease the conversion of Anglicans or Roman Catholics. But I think we really need to stridently reject the idea that every cultural or ethnic group should have its own rite.

Like the Greeks imposed on the non-Greeks of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I still think WR could be useful as a missionary tool, for example, as a way to ease the conversion of Anglicans or Roman Catholics. But I think we really need to stridently reject the idea that every cultural or ethnic group should have its own rite.

So the WR should follow the path of reverse Uniatism as espoused by, say, Fr. Adrian Fortescue, who believed that the Eastern Rites of the Roman Catholic Church should merely be "stepping stones" for the people who follow such rites to eventually become Latin ritualists?

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

I still think WR could be useful as a missionary tool, for example, as a way to ease the conversion of Anglicans or Roman Catholics. But I think we really need to stridently reject the idea that every cultural or ethnic group should have its own rite.

So the WR should follow the path of reverse Uniatism as espoused by, say, Fr. Adrian Fortescue, who believed that the Eastern Rites of the Roman Catholic Church should merely be "stepping stones" for the people who follow such rites to eventually become Latin ritualists?

Yes, that would be reversed uniatism. Besides a shame.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

When I first heard about the Western Rite, it sounded like a great idea to me. If these rites are truly a lost part of our Orthodox heritage, it could only be a good thing to bring them back, right? Looking into the issue, though, it seems that WR often has a tinge of ethnocentrism.

Then they should fit right in.

Not arguing with you here... but is existing ethnocentrism (in some quarters) an excuse for more of it?

How many WR enthusiasts have this assumption that "I'm of Western European descent, therefore I should have a Western European liturgy." There seems to be a lurking assumption that the Byzantine rite is "ethnic", as if Greeks, Arabs, Slavs, and Romanians are somehow ethnically unified.

They're all Eastern.

Which, like "Oriental," is a meaningless label apart from geography. It says nothing about language, culture, or ethnicity.

I still think WR could be useful as a missionary tool, for example, as a way to ease the conversion of Anglicans or Roman Catholics. But I think we really need to stridently reject the idea that every cultural or ethnic group should have its own rite.

Like the Greeks imposed on the non-Greeks of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem?

That's unfortunately true. However, an artificial diversity is not the solution to an artificial unity (which, over the centuries, has become a natural unity).

I still think WR could be useful as a missionary tool, for example, as a way to ease the conversion of Anglicans or Roman Catholics. But I think we really need to stridently reject the idea that every cultural or ethnic group should have its own rite.

So the WR should follow the path of reverse Uniatism as espoused by, say, Fr. Adrian Fortescue, who believed that the Eastern Rites of the Roman Catholic Church should merely be "stepping stones" for the people who follow such rites to eventually become Latin ritualists?

No, I think they should keep the WR indefinitely. It's just that it shouldn't be implemented on the basis of ethnicity.

When I first heard about the Western Rite, it sounded like a great idea to me. If these rites are truly a lost part of our Orthodox heritage, it could only be a good thing to bring them back, right? Looking into the issue, though, it seems that WR often has a tinge of ethnocentrism.

Then they should fit right in.

Not arguing with you here... but is existing ethnocentrism (in some quarters) an excuse for more of it?

How many WR enthusiasts have this assumption that "I'm of Western European descent, therefore I should have a Western European liturgy." There seems to be a lurking assumption that the Byzantine rite is "ethnic", as if Greeks, Arabs, Slavs, and Romanians are somehow ethnically unified.

They're all Eastern.

Which, like "Oriental," is a meaningless label apart from geography. It says nothing about language, culture, or ethnicity.

Yes, it does: go to the Diocletian line in the Balkans, and it is palpable. None of the Western nations have the diglossia situation so common (nearly universal) in the East. In the West, the Vulgate was to bring the text into conformity to present day speech. In the East, the only revision in ancient times of the Bible was to Atticize/Classicize the Koine. It's a difference that has been around a while.

I still think WR could be useful as a missionary tool, for example, as a way to ease the conversion of Anglicans or Roman Catholics. But I think we really need to stridently reject the idea that every cultural or ethnic group should have its own rite.

Like the Greeks imposed on the non-Greeks of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem?

That's unfortunately true. However, an artificial diversity is not the solution to an artificial unity (which, over the centuries, has become a natural unity).

You first have to show that the diversity doesn't exist. Lots of luck.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

When I first heard about the Western Rite, it sounded like a great idea to me. If these rites are truly a lost part of our Orthodox heritage, it could only be a good thing to bring them back, right? Looking into the issue, though, it seems that WR often has a tinge of ethnocentrism.

Then they should fit right in.

Not arguing with you here... but is existing ethnocentrism (in some quarters) an excuse for more of it?

Which, like "Oriental," is a meaningless label apart from geography. It says nothing about language, culture, or ethnicity.

Yes, it does: go to the Diocletian line in the Balkans, and it is palpable. None of the Western nations have the diglossia situation so common (nearly universal) in the East. In the West, the Vulgate was to bring the text into conformity to present day speech. In the East, the only revision in ancient times of the Bible was to Atticize/Classicize the Koine. It's a difference that has been around a while.

I still think WR could be useful as a missionary tool, for example, as a way to ease the conversion of Anglicans or Roman Catholics. But I think we really need to stridently reject the idea that every cultural or ethnic group should have its own rite.

Like the Greeks imposed on the non-Greeks of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem?

That's unfortunately true. However, an artificial diversity is not the solution to an artificial unity (which, over the centuries, has become a natural unity).

You first have to show that the diversity doesn't exist. Lots of luck.

The diversity doesn't exist because only a tiny minority of Orthodox parishes use anything but the Byzantine rite.

I still think WR could be useful as a missionary tool, for example, as a way to ease the conversion of Anglicans or Roman Catholics. But I think we really need to stridently reject the idea that every cultural or ethnic group should have its own rite.

The reality is that the Western Rite liturgy is just as foreign to most Anglicans and Roman Catholics as the Byzantine Rite liturgy is. Most Roman Catholics under the age of 40 have never been in a traditional Roman Rite service and instead their only exposure is post Vatican II revisions. Modern American worship for the vast majority has been reduced to singing a few songs and drinking some wine so even the Western Rite seems hooky and old fashioned. Those who are looking to convert may be respectful of the Western Rite but often times they are looking for a total cut from their old life and tradition so they prefer the Byzantine style of worship because of it being radically different.

Which, like "Oriental," is a meaningless label apart from geography. It says nothing about language, culture, or ethnicity.

Yes, it does: go to the Diocletian line in the Balkans, and it is palpable. None of the Western nations have the diglossia situation so common (nearly universal) in the East. In the West, the Vulgate was to bring the text into conformity to present day speech. In the East, the only revision in ancient times of the Bible was to Atticize/Classicize the Koine. It's a difference that has been around a while.

And how is this relevant to the question of the Western Rite?

Because East and West are NOT meaninglesss in language, culture or ethnicity. And not in the Church.

I still think WR could be useful as a missionary tool, for example, as a way to ease the conversion of Anglicans or Roman Catholics. But I think we really need to stridently reject the idea that every cultural or ethnic group should have its own rite.

Like the Greeks imposed on the non-Greeks of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem?

That's unfortunately true. However, an artificial diversity is not the solution to an artificial unity (which, over the centuries, has become a natural unity).

You first have to show that the diversity doesn't exist. Lots of luck.

The diversity doesn't exist because only a tiny minority of Orthodox parishes use anything but the Byzantine rite.

Only a tiny minority of the Orthodox live in the West, and an even tinier minority recognizes that they live in the West. Btw, not all WRO are converts, nor do they all originally come from Western ethnicities: some just face that they are Westernized, and act accordingly.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

This line of argumentation makes no sense to me. The only way I could be more "Western" or "Westernized" is if I had remained in the heterodox church I was raised in. Are you trying to claim that I should 'act accordingly' and find a more natural home in the Western rite?

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

This line of argumentation makes no sense to me. The only way I could be more "Western" or "Westernized" is if I had remained in the heterodox church I was raised in. Are you trying to claim that I should 'act accordingly' and find a more natural home in the Western rite?

I'm just saying what others did.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

My opinion is that most of the Roman rite can be retained when a community of that rite enters one of the Orthodox churches. I would never say the same thing about the Anglican stuff some want to take into the OC, as if it were on the same level with the Roman rite, and not a Reformation product.

I would never say the same thing about the Anglican stuff some want to take into the OC, as if it were on the same level with the Roman rite, and not a Reformation product.

A good answer to this:

Quote

Oops; The "Cranmerian" Liturgy of St. Tikhon Addendum

In reviewing my recent post on how some critics of the Western Rite refer to it as the "Cranmerian Rite," I realized I had omitted the most important section. True, Thomas Cranmer did not draft the Book of Common Prayer alone, but:

Most importantly, St. Tikhon's Liturgy is not simply the "Book of Common Prayer" rite. The Orthodox Church adapted this material in accordance with the Russian Observations Upon the American Prayer Book to bring it into liturgical and theological conformity with Holy Orthodoxy. Not only were these necessary changes made, but the liturgical commission of the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate added rich ceremonial and prayers expressing the Church's liturgical heritage, especially reverence for the Real Presence. Similar to the Anglo-Catholic movement of the day, it incorporated the Western structure of the Mass. Asperges, Introits, graduals, alleluias, tracts, sequences, offertory prayers, prayers at the foot of the altar, communion verses, post-communion prayers, Agnus Deis, Non Sum Dignuses, Last Gospels, and other devotions reappeared where the Protestant Reformation had done its damage, and the Gloria returned to its traditional position: following the Kyrie on most Sundays (outside certain penitential seasons). This was a full, glorious, comprehensive, catholic, Apostolic, and Orthodox liturgy.

No honest human being could describe this as "The Book of Common Prayer." Although Anglo-Catholics would recognize it, and most Western Christians feel an instant and familiar sense of worship while praying it, St. Tikhon's Liturgy far exceeded any edition of the BCP, whatever Cranmer's role in drafting any particular rendition thereof. In other words, describing the Liturgy of St. Tikhon as "Cranmer's Rite" is like describing the United States of America as "Jamestown."

Remember the fallacious logic, the faulty premise, and the blatant misrepresentation the next time you hear St. Tikhon's Liturgy described only as "the Cranmerian Rite," a charge born either of historical ignorance or ecclesiastical envy.

Then I still do not understand why should former Anglicans maintain a rite that is different from the Roman rite and still connected to the Protestant Reformation, however tenuously ?To tell you the truth, I wouldn't grant them that.

Then I still do not understand why should former Anglicans maintain a rite that is different from the Roman rite and still connected to the Protestant Reformation, however tenuously ?To tell you the truth, I wouldn't grant them that.

What's so sancrosanct about the Roman rite? Not even the Vatican is that it extreme, and has others (Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Gallican etc.)

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Then I still do not understand why should former Anglicans maintain a rite that is different from the Roman rite and still connected to the Protestant Reformation, however tenuously ?To tell you the truth, I wouldn't grant them that.

What's so sancrosanct about the Roman rite? Not even the Vatican is that it extreme, and has others (Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Gallican etc.)

It goes without saying that these other occidental rites that you mentioned are also acceptable. My contention is with a rite "reformed" then "mended" to fit into Orthodoxy.

Then I still do not understand why should former Anglicans maintain a rite that is different from the Roman rite and still connected to the Protestant Reformation, however tenuously ?To tell you the truth, I wouldn't grant them that.

What's so sancrosanct about the Roman rite? Not even the Vatican is that it extreme, and has others (Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Gallican etc.)

It goes without saying that these other occidental rites that you mentioned are also acceptable. My contention is with a rite "reformed" then "mended" to fit into Orthodoxy.

And you think the others didn't go through any "reformation?"

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

With reference to the question as to why the WRO is not thriving, I could be wrong, but my personal opinion is that it is because the Orthodox offer the WR as a concession and do not accept it fully on equal footing with the Eastern Divine Liturgy. Anyway, a few questions come to mind on the WR:1. Does the WRO Church accept baptism by pouring on the forehead (not triple immersion)?2. Does the WRO accept uncoverted Roman Catholics to Communion?

Another quotation proving that the English Liturgy isn't a Protestant sevice:

Quote

The English Liturgy is primarily based on the Sarum rite (including the Sarum canon) with some items from one BCP - the 1549 'Catholic' version [...] but not from any other BCP besides the original 1549. Those who do follow the BCP do not see it as a BCP or 'Anglican service'.

1. Does the WRO Church accept baptism by pouring on the forehead (not triple immersion)?

Yes, I have seen this done by an Antiochian WR priest with a baby.

Quote

2. Does the WRO accept uncoverted Roman Catholics to Communion?

Yes, both WR priests of the Antiochian Church in this country routinely commune Catholics and Anglicans. I have witnessed this myself and I have been present when one of them was reprimanded by the Greek Metropolitan for doing this.

Yes, both WR priests of the Antiochian Church in this country routinely commune Catholics and Anglicans.

Here is a description of a completely different approach:

Quote

I [i.e., an Anglican] inquired about receiving communion [in the ROCOR's Oratory of Our Lady of Glastonbury, Hamilton, Canada] and was told that I was welcome to receive a blessing. [...] The saddest manifestation of our Christian faith is the fact that we cannot all join as one around the altar of the Lord. [...] Meanwhile, I must say that my irregular status was handled with acute pastoral panache.

This line of argumentation makes no sense to me. The only way I could be more "Western" or "Westernized" is if I had remained in the heterodox church I was raised in. Are you trying to claim that I should 'act accordingly' and find a more natural home in the Western rite?

I'm just saying what others did.

It's nonsensical. One may as well argue for a separate Romanian rite, a separate Georgian rite, a separate Russian rite, etc.

It's nonsensical. One may as well argue for a separate Romanian rite, a separate Georgian rite, a separate Russian rite, etc.

As far, as I know, there where no such rites in the past. But the faithful of the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem can argue for separate rites for them, as they used to have them, up to some point.

One may as well argue for a separate Romanian rite, a separate Georgian rite, a separate Russian rite, etc.

Actually, the Georgians probably used, in the very distant past another rite than the one of Constantinople, probably a Syrian/Antiochian one;(Proto) Romanians too, based on linguistic evidence, most likely used a western sort of rite-perhaps of the Gallic family-only receiving the Constantinopolitan rite after the settlement of the Slavs in the Balkans and the surrounding areas.

It's interesting that the Western Rite is found primarily in America: a country that was not Orthodox until the coming of Russian missionaries, and which cannot lay claim to any particular ancient rite.

With reference to the question as to why the WRO is not thriving, I could be wrong, but my personal opinion is that it is because the Orthodox offer the WR as a concession and do not accept it fully on equal footing with the Eastern Divine Liturgy. Anyway, a few questions come to mind on the WR:1. Does the WRO Church accept baptism by pouring on the forehead (not triple immersion)?2. Does the WRO accept uncoverted Roman Catholics to Communion?

I've seen both happen in Eastern Rite Orthodox Churches.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

My best guess for the only modest growth of the Western Rite is its lack of visibility due to mixed feelings about its very existence (as witnessed by the posts in this very thread).

For those that are saying the Western Rite is some kind of "special treatment", remember that the liturgies of the Latin West were once Orthodox in every way, and were in many ways complimentary to the Byzantine rite. I personally think its a noble effort to attempt to revive it for those of Western European descent who wish to worship in the same way as their ancestors did (at least, that's part of my attraction to the rite). Granted, I'd love to see more of the Sarum Rite and other more authentic ancient liturgies, rather than that of St. Tikhon, but at the same time, most proponents of Western Orthodoxy are trying to revive a rite, not create a new one.

American people though, come from somewhere, don't they?Most of them from NW Europe.

"American people" are from the USA for the most part. However, many of their ancestors came from a lot of places and not just NW Europe. Plenty of them came from Eastern Europe, the Mediterranean countries, the middle east, the Asian countries and, of course, Africa. The history of immigration to North American is quite varied and interesting and not just from one part of one continent.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

American people though, come from somewhere, don't they?Most of them from NW Europe.

"American people" are from the USA for the most part. However, many of their ancestors came from a lot of places and not just NW Europe. Plenty of them came from Eastern Europe, the Mediterranean countries, the middle east, the Asian countries and, of course, Africa. The history of immigration to North American is quite varied and interesting and not just from one part of one continent.

Ebor

That may be true, but irrelevant: the majority come from NW Europe overwhelming (the WASP types), and the culture is dominated by this heritage. The Vatican's flock here, for instance, are still referred to as a minority although they are the largest single religious block, and the majority in plenty of places in the US, particularly the urban centers.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

American people though, come from somewhere, don't they?Most of them from NW Europe.

"American people" are from the USA for the most part. However, many of their ancestors came from a lot of places and not just NW Europe. Plenty of them came from Eastern Europe, the Mediterranean countries, the middle east, the Asian countries and, of course, Africa. The history of immigration to North American is quite varied and interesting and not just from one part of one continent.

Ebor

As Ialmisry said, it is the offspring of the NW Europeans that dominate the history, culture and even politics of this country; The Episcopalians I've heard them referred to as "the withest religion".